[Cite as McDonald v. Canton Med. Edn. Found., Inc., 2013-Ohio-3659.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

STARK COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

PAUL MC DONALD, M.D. : JUDGES: 

 : 

 : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

 Plaintiff-Appellant : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. 

 : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

-vs- : 

 : Case No. 2012CA00240 

 : 

CANTON MEDICAL EDUCATION 

FOUNDATION, INC. 

: 

: 

 : 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellee : O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of 

Common Pleas, 2012CV00513 

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 12, 2013 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellant: For Defendant-Appellee: 

 

STEPHEN P. GRIFFIN RICHARD S. MILLIGAN 

MICHAEL J. KAHLENBERG PAUL J. PUSATERI 

825 S. Main Street AMANDA L. WALLS 

North Canton, OH 44720 4684 Douglas Circle NW 

 P.O. Box 35459 

 Canton, OH 44735-5459 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240 2 

Delaney, J. 

{¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant Paul McDonald, M.D. appeals the December 10, 2012 

judgment entry of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas granting summary 

judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Canton Medical Education Foundation, Inc. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

{¶2} Plaintiff-Appellant Paul McDonald, M.D. graduated from Chicago Medical 

School in 1998. Dr. McDonald completed one year of residency at the Martin Luther 

King Medical Center in Los Angeles in 2000. Not satisfied with the residency program 

at Martin Luther King Medical Center, Dr. McDonald transferred to the internal medicine 

residency program provided by Defendant-Appellee Canton Medical Education 

Foundation, Inc. (“CMEF”). 

{¶3} On March 26, 2001, Dr. McDonald entered the CMEF residency program 

for his second post-graduate year (“PGY2”). A doctor entering the residency program at 

CMEF does so under contract for each year the doctor attends the program. The 

contract is entitled the “Canton Medical Education Foundation Resident Agreement.” 

For Dr. McDonald’s PGY2, the contract term was from July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002. 

The resident’s general responsibilities under the contract are outlined in the Resident 

Physician Manual, attached as Exhibit A to the contract and incorporated by reference. 

During the contract period, the resident conducts clinical rotations under the supervision 

of the program. 

{¶4} On February 27, 2002, Dr. McDonald entered into a Resident Agreement 

with CMEF for Dr. McDonald’s third post-graduate year (“PGY3”). The term of the 

contract was from July 1, 2002 to July 1, 2003. The contract stated Dr. McDonald 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240 3 

received an annual stipend in the amount of $42,129.00. Dr. McDonald’s duties under 

the contract again included clinical rotations. The contract incorporated the Resident 

Physician Manual by reference. Pertinent to this appeal, the Resident Physician 

Manual states as follows: 

PROMOTION AND REAPPOINTMENT 

Residents are promoted on the basis of acceptable periodic clinical 

evaluations, which may be supplemented by other evaluation methods. 

In most instances, contractual appointment is equated with academic 

promotion. Under some circumstances, a resident may be reappointed to 

repeat an academic year. 

The decision to reappoint at the same level or promote a resident to the 

next level of post-graduate training shall be done annually. The decision 

will be made after review of the resident’s performance. 

The following factors are used in the decision to promote: 

1. All evaluations of the resident’s performance 

2. Pass the USMLE [United States Medical Licensing Exam] II to be 

promoted to a PGY-2 (excluding Transitional) 

3. Pass the USMLE III to complete the residency program 

4. Any other criteria deemed appropriate by the Program Director 

The Program Director will communicate reappointment and promotional 

decisions to the GMERC [Graduate Medical Education and Research 

Committee]. All appointments (same and next academic year) are 

restricted to a maximum period of 12 months with no implied promise of 

extension. Each resident is required to sign a contract, signifying 

acceptance of the appointment. 

If significant deficiencies in the resident’s performance are identified, a 

decision may be made not to promote. As much advance written notice 

as possible will be given to this resident. When remediation is decided 

upon rather than promotion, the resident’s Residency Program Director, 

when appropriate, will arrange a plan, which includes monitoring 

performance. The Program Director may choose to extend the existing 

contract for the length of time necessary to complete the remediation 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240 4 

process. The resident may use the grievance procedure to appeal the 

decision not to promote. 

{¶5} On January 14, 2003, during the term of Dr. McDonald’s PGY3 contract 

with CMEF, Dr. McDonald entered into another Resident Agreement with CMEF that 

extended the term of the PGY3 contract by six months. The contract term was from 

July 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003. The annual stipend was $42,972.00. 

{¶6} The resident generally takes the USMLE III exam during the third postgraduate year. Upon passage of the USMLE III exam and a certificate of completion of 

a residency program, a doctor is eligible to sit for the internal medicine boards. If the 

doctor passes the internal medicine boards, the doctor will be an internal medicine 

board certified physician. 

{¶7} Dr. McDonald took the USMLE III exam on November 25, 2003. He did 

not pass the exam. 

{¶8} The term of Dr. McDonald’s Resident Agreement was to expire on 

December 31, 2003. Dr. McDonald met with Dr. Richard Ziegler, Program Director of 

the CMEF residency program to discuss Dr. McDonald’s status with the residency 

program. Pursuant to their discussion, Dr. Zeigler sent Dr. McDonald the following letter 

on December 30, 2003: 

Re: Certificate of Completion of Training, Internal Medicine Residency 

Program 

 Thank you very much for meeting with me today, 12/30/2003, to 

discuss your status with the residency program. I am sorry that the news 

from USMLE Step 3 [USMLE III] was not favorable. The faculty and staff 

of the residency program are pulling for you as you work and study to get 

by this next hurdle. 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240 5 

 As we discussed at the meeting, the residency steering 

committee/program evaluation committee has decided that you will 

receive a certificate of completion of training in internal medicine from the 

residency when you pass Step 3. The committee also decided that you 

have one year (until 12/31/04) to pass Step 3. If you do not pass Step 3 

by 12/31/04, the residency program will not be able to grant you a 

certificate of completion of training and you will probably have to repeat at 

least a part of your residency training program. As you know, a passing 

grade on Step 3 is a requirement for completion of all Canton residency 

programs. 

{¶9} After December 31, 2003, Dr. McDonald was no longer performing duties, 

including clinical rotations, as outlined by the Resident Agreement. 

{¶10} Dr. McDonald took the USMLE III exam on June 3, 2004. He did not pass 

the exam. 

{¶11} Dr. John McGreevey, Jr., the current Program Director of the CMEF 

Residency Program sent the following letter to Dr. McDonald on June 29, 2004: 

I hope this letter finds you well and enjoying the summer. I am writing as 

a reminder for you to inform us once you have passed your USMLE Step 

III exam so that we can release your diploma and plaque. Per the 

Steering Committee decision, if you do not pass USMLE Step III by 

December 31, 2004, we will be unable to grant you a certificate of 

completion of training and you will likely need to repeat at least a portion 

of your residency training. 

{¶12} On November 24, 2004, Dr. McGreevey sent Dr. McDonald the following 

letter: 

As we discussed last week, I am allowing you to extend the deadline for 

taking your Step 3 exam into January 2005 because of the current 

scheduling problems. However, this does not in anyway change any of 

the other aspects of the letters you have received from the program 

regarding Step 3. 

Please let me know as soon as possible the results of your Step 3 exam. 

{¶13} Dr. McDonald took the USMLE III exam on January 20, 2005. He did not 

pass the exam. 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240 6 

{¶14} On August 26, 2005, Dr. McGreevey sent Dr. McDonald a certified letter 

which read: 

It has been 20 months since you have completed your final residency 

rotation here in CMEF. During this time we have not sent in a report to the 

American Board of Internal Medicine on your PGY-3 year, because you 

had not passed Step 3 of the USMLE, a requirement for successful 

completion. In December 2003 the program informed you that we would 

only be able to provide you with a certificate of completion if you were able 

to pass Step 3 of the USMLE by December 31, 2004. You were also told 

at that time that if you did not pass Step 3 by that time, you would have to 

repeat some portion of your training. We later agreed to extend this 

deadline into January 2005 at your request. It has been over six months 

since the deadline has passed and to our knowledge you still have not 

passed Step 3. Added to that, we are concerned because during this time 

you have been unable to engage in activities to maintain your clinical 

skills. 

We are required to report to the American Board of Internal Medicine a 

satisfactory or unsatisfactory rating for your PGY-3 year. An 

unsatisfactory rating mandates repeating of the third year of residency. 

At this time we have decided to turn in an unsatisfactory rating to the 

ABIM on the basis of your inability to pass Step 3 of the USMLE. This 

means that you will not be eligible to receive a certificate of completion, or 

to take the Internal Medicine Boards, unless you repeat your third year of 

residency. We are not able to guarantee the availability of a position here 

to do another PGY-3 year. 

We will verify the time of training that you have had here and the 

circumstances of why you have not received a certificate to anyone upon 

your request. However, since you have not completed the requirements 

of residency 20 months after finishing your final rotation, we feel this is the 

appropriate course. 

{¶15} Dr. McDonald took the USMLE III exam on October 18, 2005. He passed 

the exam. 

{¶16} Dr. McDonald sent CMEF a letter on December 7, 2005 requesting the 

Steering Committee to reverse its decision to give an unsatisfactory rating for Dr. 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240 7 

McDonald to the ABIM. Dr. McDonald argued he had successfully completed his PGY3 

year and passed the USMLE III exam. 

{¶17} On February 24, 2006, CMEF informed Dr. McDonald that CMEF would 

not give Dr. McDonald credit for the PGY3 training at CMEF. 

{¶18} Dr. McDonald filed a complaint against CMEF with the Stark County 

Court of Common Pleas. In his complaint, he alleged breach of written contract, breach 

of oral contract, and promissory estoppel. He argued CMEF breached the Resident 

Agreement by failing to award Dr. McDonald a certificate of completion and giving him 

an unsatisfactory rating even though Dr. McDonald completed his PGY3 and passed 

the USMLE III. Dr. McDonald argued the unsatisfactory rating damaged his abilities to 

gain entrance into a residency program to retake his third post-graduate year. Dr. 

McDonald is not able to sit for the Internal Medicine Boards to become a board certified 

physician in internal medicine. He argued he suffered financial damages by his inability 

to practice as a board certified physician. 

{¶19} On October 29, 2012, CMEF moved for summary judgment on all counts 

of the complaint. Dr. McDonald responded on November 8, 2012. Dr. McDonald 

dismissed his claims for breach of oral contract and promissory estoppel on November 

13, 2012. CMEF replied on November 20, 2012. 

{¶20} The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of CMEF on December 

10, 2012. It is from this decision Dr. McDonald now appeals. 

 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240 8 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

{¶21} Dr. McDonald raises one Assignment of Error: 

{¶22} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO 

APPELLEE WHERE THERE WERE GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT IN 

DISPUTE.” 

ANALYSIS 

{¶23} Dr. McDonald argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in 

favor of CMEF. We refer to Civ.R. 56(C) in reviewing a motion for summary judgment 

which provides, in pertinent part: 

Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleading, 

depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, 

transcripts of evidence in the pending case and written stipulations of fact, 

if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to 

any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law. * * * A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it 

appears from such evidence or stipulation and only from the evidence or 

stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and 

that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for 

summary judgment is made, such party being entitled to have the 

evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party's favor. 

{¶24} The moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the trial court 

of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record before the trial 

court, which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of fact on a material element 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240 9 

of the nonmoving party's claim. Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292, 662 N.E.2d 

264 (1996). The nonmoving party then has a reciprocal burden of specificity and cannot 

rest on the allegations or denials in the pleadings, but must set forth “specific facts” by 

the means listed in Civ.R. 56(C) showing that a “triable issue of fact” exists. Mitseff v. 

Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112, 115, 526 N.E.2d 798, 801 (1988). 

{¶25} Pursuant to the above rule, a trial court may not enter summary judgment 

if it appears a material fact is genuinely disputed. Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421, 

429, 674 N.E.2d 1164 (1997), citing Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 264 

(1996). 

{¶26} In order to prove a claim for breach of contract by CMEF, Dr. McDonald 

must show: 1) the existence of a contract; 2) performance by the plaintiff; 3) 

nonperformance by the defendant; and 4) damages as a result. Textron Fin. Corp. v. 

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 115 Ohio App.3d 137, 144, 684 N.E.2d 1261 (9th 

Dist.1996), citing Garofalo v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., 104 Ohio App.3d 95, 108, 

661 N.E.2d 218 (8th Dist.1995). A plaintiff must prove the elements of a breach of 

contract by a preponderance of the evidence. Cooper & Pachell v. Haslage, 142 Ohio 

App.3d 704, 707, 756 N.E.2d 1248 (9th Dist.2001). 

{¶27} Dr. McDonald argues CMEF breached the Resident Agreement when it 

failed to give Dr. McDonald a certificate of completion when he passed the USMLE III. 

He states the Resident Agreement and the incorporated Resident Physician Manual 

gives no deadline for passing the USMLE III. He further argues CMEF breached the 

contract by failing to engage in remediation and grievance procedures listed in the 

Resident Physician Manual incorporated by reference in the contract. 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240 10 

{¶28} The parties have established the existence of a contract. There is no 

dispute Dr. McDonald and CMEF entered into a contract for Dr. McDonald to perform 

his PGY3 with CMEF. The term of the second Resident Agreement for PGY3 began on 

July 1, 2003 and ended on December 31, 2003. Dr. McDonald’s responsibilities as a 

resident with CMEF were outlined in the Resident Agreement: 

The Resident shall devote full-time effort to performing satisfactorily in all 

areas of the residency program including, without limitation, demonstrating 

didactic and clinical competency and displaying appropriate, professional 

behavior. General responsibilities are outlined in the Resident Physician 

Manual, which is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated in this Agreement 

by reference. The Resident must also abide by the then-current Human 

Resources and Hospital policies of each institution to which the Resident 

may rotate. To the extent that these policies are in conflict with, and/or 

inconsistent with Exhibits A and/or A-1, the latter Exhibits shall be 

controlling. Aultman Hospital reserves the right to amend Exhibit A and its 

Human Resources and Hospital policies from time to time at its sole 

discretion. The position of housestaff physician entails provision of care 

commensurate with the housestaff’s level of advancement and 

competence, under the general supervision of appropriately privileged 

attending teaching staff. This includes: 

 Participation in safe, effective and compassionate patient care; 

 Developing an understanding of ethical, socioeconomic and 

medical legal issues that affect graduate medical education and 

how to apply cost containment measures in the provision of patient 

care; 

 Participation in the educational activities of the training program 

and, as appropriate, assumption of responsibility for teaching and 

supervising other residents and students, and participation in 

institutional orientation and education programs and other activities 

involving the clinical staff; 

 Participation in institutional committees and councils to which the 

housestaff physician is appointed or invited; 

 Performance of these duties in accordance with the established 

practices, procedures and policies of the institution and those of its 

programs, clinical departments and other institutions to which the 

housestaff physician is assigned, including, among others, state 

licensing requirements for physicians in training, where these exist; 

 Participation in the evaluation of the quality of education provided 

by the hospital; and 

 Assistance in recruiting new residents to the institution. 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240 11 

{¶29} The Resident Agreement outlined the program responsibilities: 

CMEF shall offer the Resident a postgraduate training opportunity in a 

community hospital setting. CMEF agrees to provide the Resident the 

following support, benefits and conditions of employment. 

A) Financial Support: See Exhibit A-1 incorporated in this Agreement by 

reference. 

The Resident shall receive an annual stipend in the amount of 

$42,972.00, payable biweekly and an annual Education Allowance in 

accordance with the post-graduate year. 

B) Benefits: See Exhibit A. 

1. Sick Time, Bereavement Pay, Jury Duty 

2. Healthcare Insurance, Life Insurance, Short-Term Disability 

3. Professional Liability Insurance 

4. Vacation Time 

5. Leave of Absences 

6. On-Call Rooms, Meal Allowances, and Lab Coats 

C) Other Responsibilities and Policies: See Exhibit A. 

1. Duty Hours 

2. Supervision 

3. Harassment Policy 

4. Physician Impairment 

5. Promotion and Retention 

6. Dismissal and Other Forms of Corrective Action 

7. Grievance 

8. Moonlighting 

9. Reduction/Closure 

10. Medical Services 

11. Counseling/Psychological Service 

{¶30} The parties agree as to the existence of a contract. The next issue to 

analyze is whether there is a genuine issue of material fact that Dr. McDonald 

performed the terms of the contract and CMEF did not perform its responsibilities under 

the contract in order for Dr. McDonald’s claim of breach of contract to survive summary 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240 12 

judgment. The relevant terms of the contract to answer these questions are found in 

the Resident Physician Manual. It states: 

PROMOTION AND REAPPOINTMENT 

Residents are promoted on the basis of acceptable periodic clinical 

evaluations, which may be supplemented by other evaluation methods. 

In most instances, contractual appointment is equated with academic 

promotion. Under some circumstances, a resident may be reappointed to 

repeat an academic year. 

The decision to reappoint at the same level or promote a resident to the 

next level of post-graduate training shall be done annually. The decision 

will be made after review of the resident’s performance. 

The following factors are used in the decision to promote: 

1. All evaluations of the resident’s performance 

2. Pass the USMLE [United States Medical Licensing Exam] II to be 

promoted to a PGY-2 (excluding Transitional) 

3. Pass the USMLE III to complete the residency program 

4. Any other criteria deemed appropriate by the Program Director 

The Program Director will communicate reappointment and promotional 

decisions to the GMERC [Graduate Medical Education and Research 

Committee]. All appointments (same and next academic year) are 

restricted to a maximum period of 12 months with no implied promise of 

extension. Each resident is required to sign a contract, signifying 

acceptance of the appointment. 

If significant deficiencies in the resident’s performance are identified, a 

decision may be made not to promote. As much advance written notice 

as possible will be given to this resident. When remediation is decided 

upon rather than promotion, the resident’s Residency Program Director, 

when appropriate, will arrange a plan, which includes monitoring 

performance. The Program Director may choose to extend the existing 

contract for the length of time necessary to complete the remediation 

process. The resident may use the grievance procedure to appeal the 

decision not to promote. 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240 13 

{¶31} Dr. McDonald states the contract is silent as to a date or deadline by 

which the resident must pass the USMLE III exam in order to be eligible to complete the 

CMEF residency program. The thrust of his argument is that CMEF failed to perform 

under the contract when it did not give Dr. McDonald a certificate of completion because 

(1) the contract does not state a deadline for passing the USMLE III, (2) Dr. McDonald 

passed the USMLE III, and (3) Dr. McDonald completed his clinical rotation CMEF with 

satisfactory marks. CMEF argues in the contrary that on December 31, 2003, the 

contractual relationship between CMEF and Dr. McDonald terminated. CMEF 

gratuitously extended the date by which Dr. McDonald could pass the USMLE III, but 

Dr. McDonald failed to meet those multiple deadlines. In order to complete the CMEF 

residency program, Dr. McDonald was required to pass the USMLE III; the question is, 

pursuant to the contract, when was he required to pass the USMLE III exam? 

{¶32} The parties' arguments as to the terms of the contract require this Court to 

engage in contract interpretation. When confronted with an issue of contract 

interpretation, our role is to give effect to the intent of the parties. Westfield Ins. Group 

v. Affinia Dev., L.L.C., 2012-Ohio-5348, 982 N.E.2d 132, ¶ 21 (5th Dist.). We will 

examine the contract as a whole and presume that the intent of the parties is reflected 

in the language of the contract. In addition, we will look to the plain and ordinary 

meaning of the language used in the contract unless another meaning is clearly 

apparent from the contents of the agreement. When the language of a written contract 

is clear, a court may look no further than the writing itself to find the intent of the parties. 

“As a matter of law, a contract is unambiguous if it can be given a definite legal 

meaning.” Sunoco, Inc. (R & M) v. Toledo Edison, Co., 129 Ohio St.3d 397, 2011-Ohio-
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240 14 

2720, 953 N.E.2d 285, ¶ 37 citing Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216, 

2003-Ohio-5849, 797 N.E.2d 1256, ¶ 11. 

{¶33} On February 27, 2002, Dr. McDonald entered into a Resident Agreement 

of Appointment with CMEF for Dr. McDonald’s PGY3. The term of the contract was 

from July 1, 2002 to July 1, 2003. On January 14, 2003, during the term of Dr. 

McDonald’s PGY3 contract with CMEF, Dr. McDonald entered into another Resident 

Agreement with CMEF that extended the term of the PGY3 contract by six months. The 

term of appointment was from July 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003. The total term of Dr. 

McDonald’s PGY3 with CMEF was one year, five months, and thirty days. 

{¶34} The Resident Physician Manual, incorporated into the Resident 

Agreement by reference, states in the “Promotion and Reappointment” section: “In most 

instances, contractual appointment is equated with academic promotion. * * * All 

appointments (same and next academic year) are restricted to a maximum period of 12 

months with no implied promise of extension. Each resident is required to sign a 

contract, signifying acceptance of the appointment.” The factors by which CMEF uses 

to determine whether to promote a resident are: 

1. All evaluations of the resident’s performance 

2. Pass the USMLE [United States Medical Licensing Exam] II to be 

promoted to a PGY-2 (excluding Transitional) 

3. Pass the USMLE III to complete the residency program 

4. Any other criteria deemed appropriate by the Program Director. 

{¶35} Dr. McDonald’s contractual appointment with CMEF terminated on 

December 31, 2003. Dr. McDonald testified in his deposition that as of December 31, 

2003, he was no longer engaged in clinical rotations with CMEF pursuant to the resident 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240 15 

duties outlined in the Resident Agreement. Likewise, CMEF was no longer providing 

Dr. McDonald with the program responsibilities, such as benefits, outlined in the 

Resident Agreement after December 31, 2003. 

{¶36} The contract states that appointments are restricted to a maximum period 

of 12 months with no implied promise of extension. Dr. McDonald’s contractual 

appointment for his PGY3 was for approximately seventeen months. The contract 

further states that in most cases, contractual appointment is equated with academic 

promotion. A factor for academic promotion is to pass the USMLE III for completion of 

the residency program. Considering the language of the Resident Agreement and 

incorporated Resident Physician Manual as a whole, it is unambiguous that a resident 

must pass the USMLE III within the contractual appointment period. Dr. McDonald’s 

contractual appointment terminated on December 31, 2003. Accordingly, we find no 

genuine issue of material fact that Dr. McDonald failed to perform under the terms of the 

Resident Agreement and Resident Physician Manual by his failure to timely pass the 

USMLE III exam. Dr. McDonald’s failure to perform obviates a claim for breach of 

contract against CMEF. 

{¶37} CMEF granted Dr. McDonald extensions to pass the USMLE III until 

January 2005. Assuming for sake of argument that the letters from CMEF to Dr. 

McDonald granting Dr. McDonald additional time to pass the USMLE III exam were 

contract extensions rather than mere gratuities, there is no dispute of fact that Dr. 

McDonald did not pass the USMLE III exam until October 18, 2005. 

{¶38} Ultimately, CMEF informed Dr. McDonald it could not grant Dr. McDonald 

a certificate of completion for the CMEF residency program due to Dr. McDonald’s 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240 16 

failure to timely pass the USMLE III exam. CMEF further stated because Dr. 

McDonald’s final rotation with CMEF terminated twenty months previously, CMEF could 

not verify Dr. McDonald’s clinical skills. Dr. McDonald submitted a letter to CMEF on 

December 7, 2005, requesting CMEF to reverse its decision. Dr. McDonald argues that 

pursuant to the decision not to promote, Dr. McDonald should have been permitted to 

utilize the grievance procedures as follows: 

If significant deficiencies in the resident’s performance are identified, a 

decision may be made not to promote. As much advance written notice 

as possible will be given to this resident. When remediation is decided 

upon rather than promotion, the resident’s Residency Program Director, 

when appropriate, will arrange a plan, which includes monitoring 

performance. The Program Director may choose to extend the existing 

contract for the length of time necessary to complete the remediation 

process. The resident may use the grievance procedure to appeal the 

decision not to promote. 

(Resident Physician Manual, Promotion and Reappointment). Dr. McDonald states the 

failure to allow Dr. McDonald utilize the grievance procedure outlined in the Resident 

Physician Manual is a further breach by CMEF. 

{¶39} The trial court held that this argument could not support a claim for breach 

of contract because the contract upon which the claim was based terminated on 

December 31, 2003. We agree. Just as Dr. McDonald was no longer performing the 

duties required of him by the Resident Agreement, he was no longer able to exercise 

the procedures outlined in the Resident Agreement and incorporated Resident 

Physician Manual. 

{¶40} Upon our de novo review, we find reasonable minds can only conclude 

CMEF did not breach the Resident Agreement of Appointment and incorporated 
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00240 17 

Resident Physician Manual when it denied Dr. McDonald a certificate of completion for 

Dr. McDonald’s failure to timely pass the USMLE III exam. 

{¶41} The sole Assignment of Error of Plaintiff-Appellant Paul McDonald, M.D. is 

overruled. 

CONCLUSION 

{¶42} The judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

By: Delaney, J., 

Gwin, P.J. and 

Hoffman, J., concur. 

HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY 

HON. W. SCOTT GWIN 

HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN